Final Project

The film "Boys in the Hood" is set in South Central LA in the early 90s. It focuses on the lives of three boys: Trey, Ricky, and Doughboy. Trey has a supportive family, while Ricky and Doughboy were raised by a single mother. Poverty, substance abuse, and crime are major issues in the film. The boys in the hood turn to crime as a means of survival in their impoverished neighborhood. The film explores the effects of broken family structures and the lack of positive role models. Sociological analysis is needed to understand the long-term effects of poverty and crime on these communities. Reviews of the film highlight its impact and its portrayal of real issues faced by impoverished inner cities. The film also addresses topics such as gentrification and biased standardized testing. The lack of positive role models and the desire for material possessions can lead inner city kids to engage in criminal behavior. The film challenges stereotypes and offers a compassionate view of the struggles The film I chose was Boys in the Hood. The film is set in the early 90s in South Central LA. The film spends most of the time focusing on the lives of three boys as they turn into young men. The film shows a real life reality of what these young men go through to understand the world. The main characters are Trey, Ricky, and Doughboy. Trey has a present father figure and a supportive mother in the background, while Ricky and Doughboy were raised by a single mother. Ricky is lucky to have football, but Doughboy chooses life in the streets. Doughboy is in and out of jail while Trey and Ricky work through high school to get to college. The main issue in the film are poverty, substance abuse, and crime, while also spending considerable amounts of time exploring the effects a family has when they are not a traditional mother and father household, more specifically a father not being present. Crime is very evident in the movie as the majority of the boys in the hood are taking up crime as a means of survival. Social issues are manifested due to the relationship between the boys in the hood and the police, as well as biased policing. Poverty is evident in the film, so the boys in the hood are also using crime to make money. This social issue is manifested as the young men who do take part in this criminal behavior do not have positive role models deterring them from this behavior. Trey does have a positive role model and he does not take part in criminal behavior. The social issue in this film that would benefit from sociological analysis are poverty, crime, and broken family structures and their short-term and long-term effects. While Doughboy loves his family as portrayed in the film, he shows this through a protective and criminal mindset. He is willing to harm others to protect his brother Ricky. I feel the analysis of how poverty, crime, and broken families have long effects on communities and the need to break this cycle would be best studied by sociological analysis to recognize the signs and get the boys in the hood the help they need at the beginning of this behavior rather than years and habits being ingrained in their heads. The sociological question I would like to research is what happens to young men in areas of poverty and crime when basic needs are not met? The research question I'm going to research is, is poverty directly related to increases in crime? After reading the articles and reviews of Boys in the Hood, it is evident that the film had a real impact on all who reviewed it in a deep and personal way. The New York Times critic who was personally affected by the conversation Furious had with Trey regarding the black man's place in the army through the same conversation the author had with his grandfather about a black man's place in the army or the issues inner cities have had to deal with due to the real estate gentrification. This film is a great American film which talks on the issues poor, impoverished inner cities deal with to this present day. The New York Times is a mainstream piece of media and shares some of the same ideals as the smaller news sources that spoke about this film. According to the New York Times, early on Furious takes a young Trey, Arnaz Hines II, to the beach for some father-son bonding time. They talk about girls, sex, and life. Then Furious mentions his time in Vietnam. Shirley Singleton was thinking of the young soldier Fishbourne played in Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now while he filmed the scene. Don't ever go in the army, Trey, he says. Black men ain't got no place in the army. I sat up in the theater because this was the exact conversation I had with my grandfather. To end quote, New York Times 2021. Another source of information was a review from Roger Ebert, an elderly white man compared to what sounds to be a black man from the New York Times review based on the connection to the same conversation the author had with his grandfather regarding the place of a black man in the army. Roger Ebert spoke to the same issue that communities who experience poverty need to deal with daily. Roger Ebert speaks about violence and the need to prove their adulthood. Roger Ebert speaks on how, without the proper guidance and love, the tendency to get caught up in a life of crime is a real threat. While the New York Times article was most likely written by a black man and Roger Ebert is white, the reviews both speak on the issue that poverty has a real effect on crime. Systematic racism, lack of positive role, male leaders and overall stress that these kids go through in their daily lives. According to Ebert, Boys in the Hood has maturity and emotional depth. There are no cheap shots, nothing is thrown in for effect. Realism is placed ahead of easy dramatic payoffs and the audience grows deeply involved. By the end of Boys in the Hood, I realized I had seen not simply a brilliant directorial debut but an American film of American importance. End quote, Ebert. What legitimizes my interpretations of the articles and the importance of the film in this review that was done more recently on Boys in the Hood by Peter Bradshaw of the Guardian. Peter speaks about the reality that a lot of what was discussed in the film remains today. He spoke about the reality that the SATs are a bit biased besides math and in today's world, some colleges are not even making you submit SAT scores. The same is true of the reality of gentrification which has destroyed cultural neighborhoods in the inner city and has displaced families throughout the country. According to Bradshaw, 2016, Fishburne's gentrification speech is as fierce as ever along with his denunciation of SAT exams as culturally loaded with the exception of math. To end quote, Bradshaw, 2016. The desire to have things is marketed to us by our capitalist society and the kids that live in these communities are doing what they need to do to keep up with the kids that have some nice things. A child's mind is not fully mature and the ability to do the right thing usually comes later in life if the positive role models did not set the early examples from an early age. The lack of development will result in some mistakes of crime while trying to figure out their path. Trey had furious, Ricky had football, and a mom who loved him more than Doughboy. Doughboy had the streets to help form his moral compass and as a result, Doughboy was living a life of crime while Trey and Ricky were on the straight and narrow path. The temptations and struggles that these kids had to deal with even tested Trey in the scene where Ricky was shot and Trey's initial reaction was to join Doughboy in the car to avenge Ricky's death. On average, more affluent communities do not have to deal with the same level of inner city killings that these men and women deal with daily. More affluent communities can also have financial support from their family while the kids in the inner city must fend for themselves more. Sometimes inner city kids will take the easier path and commit crimes rather than work 9 to 5 to get the commercial items they choose. I feel the majority of the general audience that sees the movie Boys in the Hood is biased towards the inner city due to the media and the outside view they have of what goes on in the inner city. Yes, crime does happen in the inner city. However, the film looks at the more compassionate side of Doughboy and his protective nature. People fear what they don't understand. It's natural. After they see the film, I believe it shows some of the issues these young adults need to deal with daily. The conflict theory is an excellent way to look at sociological assumptions one has about poverty in the inner city as it relates to crime. While it may look like the young adults in the communities might not be willing to trust authority as far as law enforcement and government, this can be correlated to Karl Marx and his references to how the oppressed show a lack of authority or trust in the oppressor. Karl Marx would also argue that capitalism glorifies the cars and new sneakers that the kids want in the inner city and that it causes the community to do things that are not morally correct to collect items like Doughboy's cars. I know the conflict theory will help me limit my bias and assumptions on poverty and how it relates to the crime issues in the inner city due to the cause and effect phenomenon of the conflict they have in a capitalist society. In other words, the system is rigged to give the members of poor inner city communities a harder time living by the rules in place that the authoritative powers enforce. Knowing that poverty has a direct correlation to crime as a means of survival and acceptance, I acknowledge the other approaches need to be considered when making decisions in this environment. If the zoning laws allow certain businesses in a certain part of town to cause negative effects in communities, I need to remember that when judging the behavior, some of these businesses may cause negative effects like liquor stores and gun stores. That being said, people cannot use guns to harm people but doing preventative work and offering social services to those in need is crucial to at least attempting to level the playing field with communities that have more economic stability. As far as how sociological theories influence research interests and career goals, I will use these theories and explanations to continue my career in law enforcement but remember that the powerful lawmakers, zoning boards, and capitalists make the blanket management style decisions that affect the communities that we as law enforcement personnel walk daily by practicing empathy and remembering that the system is set up for those decision makers to succeed and that some of the decisions that they make have a deeply negative effect on certain groups and demographics due to the conflict theory and the cause and effect of the theory. An example would be the zoning board allowing businesses in a certain part of town and not allowing them in another part of town. I keep referring to liquor stores and gun stores but the same could be said for healthy food options. When the zoning board allows negative businesses in a certain community but does not force these rich business leaders to reinvest in the same communities that their businesses hurt, that is wrong. What if the government forced these liquor stores and gun stores to pay for healthy food stores to open up in poor communities rather than having processed food as their only option? The result would be better fuel for the residents which would lead to better decision making. I believe Karl Marx would agree. In conclusion, Karl Marx and the conflict theory will help in the reasons why crime is present in communities affected by poverty. The social phenomenon in the film Boys in the Hood is directly related to the social issue of poverty. Poverty and all the social issues related to poverty are directly related to an increase in areas stricken by poverty due to lack of resources and the environment that poverty creates. Poverty is directly related to a mistrust in the government that correlates to a lack of trust in the rules set in place by the people in power to control and maintain a healthy society. Poverty results in desperation and creates an immediate need for daily survival due to a lack of the most needed resources. These resources are food, safe housing, positive role models to guide one's indoctrination into society. The film also goes into depth about discrimination by members of authority which does not help with the general distrust of people in authority. The film shows examples of this through the experiences that the characters had with the police as well as hints of it through their childhood teachers. The film also shows how in a capitalistic society the people who live in neighborhoods stricken with poverty have an even harder time getting out of poverty due to some of the external practices that are in these communities. The film goes into how there are liquor stores and gun stores in their neighborhood which does not help with the overall well-being in these communities. The film also goes on to say that these types of businesses are not in more affluent communities and that they are allowed in poor neighborhoods as it is a way to poison poor societies. Trey's dad also gives a speech about the need for financial illiteracy as a tool to educate oneself about how to break the cycles of poverty as he references the billboard regarding the cash for your home as a gentrification tool. In a capitalistic society, the ones in power and the ones who have the resources are at an advantage over the ones who are dealing with poverty daily. The conflict's perspective is a good way to explain the correlation between poverty and crime. From a conflict's perspective, there is essentially a winner and a loser on a given social issue. If the people in power choose to have a capitalist society and the glorification of materialistic goods is evident, it will result in the desire to obtain these goods. If people in power market the glorification of violence and substance abuse, then the result will be violence and substance abuse. The same examples work when people in power deregulates certain zoning practices in a certain neighborhood. If liquor stores and gun stores are allowed in a certain neighborhood, then the chance of these businesses affecting a community are higher than a community that does not allow these types of businesses. In the movie, there are numerous examples of how substance abuse clouded the thinking of these young adults as well as plenty of examples of the negative consequences caused by unnecessary gun violence. The continued cycle of poverty, substance abuse, and gun violence, all the more made this behavior normalized in these poverty-stricken communities. A classical theory that helps me understand this social phenomenon is Karl Marx and the conflict theory. Karl Marx explains that in a capitalist society where the glorification of materialistic goods is present, people put undue stress on themselves to gather these goods and make compromised decisions to get them. Karl Marx also explains that when the people in power are making all the decisions for the general group, this builds a general distrust of the people being told what to do by the people in power. According to Turner, the more unequal the distribution of scarce resources in a society, the greater is the basic conflict of interest between its dominant and subordinate segments. According to Turner, the more unequal the distribution of scarce resources in a society, the greater is the basic conflict of interest between its dominant and subordinate segments. The more subordinate segments become aware of the true collective interest, the more likely they are to question the legitimacy of the existing pattern of distribution of scarce resources. Subordinates are more likely to become aware of the true collective interest when, A, changes brought by dominant segments disrupt existing relations among subordinates, B, practice of dominant segments create alienated dispositions, C, members of subordinate segments can communicate their grievances to one another, which in turn is facilitated by the ecological concentration among members of the subordinate groups, the expansion of educational opportunities for members of subordinate groups, and D, subordinate segments can develop unifying ideologies, which in turn is facilitated by the capacity to recruit or general ideological spokespeople. The inability of dominant groups to regulate socialization processes and communication networks among subordinates. The more subordinate segments of a system become aware of their collective interest and question the legitimacy of the distribution of scarce resources, the more likely they are to join in an overt conflict against dominant segments of a system, especially when, A, dominant groups cannot clearly articulate nor act in terms of their collective interest, B, deprivations of subordinates move from an absolute to relative basis or escalate rapidly, and C, subordinate groups can develop a political leadership structure, end quote, Turner. Again, according to Turner, the greater the ideological unification of members of subordinate segments of the system and the more developed their political leadership structure, the more likely are the interests and relations between dominant and subjugated segments of a society to become polarized and irreconcilable. The more polarized the dominant subjugated, the more violent will be the conflict. The more violent is the conflict, the greater is the amount of structural change within a society and the greater is the redistribution of scarce resources. Turner, 2003, page 206. A contemporary sociological theory that helps me understand the relationship between poverty and crime is the American style critical theory. From its views on racial discrimination and civil rights movements in the 60s, the result added attention to the breakdowns in systems and procedures that plague people of color and people who are experiencing poverty. A lot of these communities that are racially discriminated against or were plagued with poverty were directly related to some of the laws in place that did not allow certain minority groups to buy real estate in certain parts of town or to be able to vote. The result was continuous cycles of people getting elected by society who had something to benefit from by keeping these discriminatory procedures in place. According to Turner, 2013, the two great social movements in the second half of the 20th century, the civil rights movement for minorities and the feminist movement for women, are the sources of a critical approach that emphasizes the continued existence of racism and sexism and more broadly that criticizes the failure of civil rights approaches to eliminate both subtle and obvious forms of discrimination. These approaches were institutionalized in academia, not only in many sociology departments, but also in various types of ethnic and women's studies departments, programs within academia. Yet, the institutionalization only became in the 1960s. Indeed, the critical period of American sociology is not part of the early sociological canon. True, racism and poverty, especially during the Great Depression, were part of American sociology, which is for the most part operated under the ideology of amelioration that was less critical than American critical theory would become several decades later. Thus, I will only briefly mention American critical theory in this chapter because, in essence, it is an outgrowth of social movements in the 1960s and 1970s and is more part of contemporary sociological theory than early sociological theory. Turner, 2013, page 654. In the article, How Poverty Influences Crime, the author Louise Gale, who besides being a writer is also in finance, speaks about how poverty is directly related to crime for several reasons. Untreated mental illness, substance abuse, and a constant fight-or-flight mentality are all directly related to increased crime statistics from poverty. The author goes on to also say that the only way to fix these issues is to provide these communities with the resources they need, as well as constant policing in these communities to protect the people in the areas stricken with poverty with the same attention as a more affluent community gets from the police. According to Gale, there will always be crime. That much is clear. What our goal must be in society is to eliminate crime that is due to the stress of poverty. Through reforms, treatment, and a removal of the stress that comes from living in poverty, it is clear that a lower crime rate will be the result. Texas has already proven this. In order to make this happen, we must be willing to set aside our own personal stereotypes about poverty. Instead of someone being a poor person, we must view them as a person. We must treat children equally, no matter what their socioeconomic class might be, and we must be consistent in providing opportunities to everyone, no matter what their living situation might be. When there are zero opportunities, an individual will make their own opportunities, and that will usually be through crime. It will be through violent crime, if necessary. We may never completely eliminate poverty within our lifetime, but we can set the stage for people to find a different way than in previous generations. Through education, treatment, and consistency, people will be given more opportunities that will help them be able to get the job they need to provide themselves with legitimate resources. If not, then our future might just be a world where people feel like they need to steal food from Taco Bell in order to survive. End quote. How poverty influences crime rates. The conflict theory helps me explain the author's conclusion. If resources are not available, then the result will be a desire to get the desired resources, and if resources are not available, then poor decision-making will be practiced to satisfy the need for survival or the fight-or-flight response. The second article, the video, I found was an opposing view of this article. This video, it doesn't make sense to blame crime on poverty, but a Wall Street Journal, John Riley, February 18, 2023, goes into saying that the blame lands with political powers in control for allowing this behavior. This video blames the lack of dealing with the smaller issues in society, which results in larger crime issues, otherwise known as the broken window theory. The video explains by justifying bad behavior and not dealing with it when it is small, the result will be a frustrated society that has no respect for law and order. I can see how the conflict theory can be connected to this, as if people in power do not do their job in communities where poverty is present, then the result will be a frustrated community, and the result will be a conflict between the oppressor and people being oppressed. Just because someone is poor, that does not mean their neighborhood do not deserve the same attention that a more affluent community gets. The result will be a continued distrust in the government resulting in lawlessness. Based on the two articles and their opposing viewpoints on how to deal with crime as it relates to poverty and the conflict theory, you can see many references in Boys in the Hood. One very common theme in the movie is the general distrust in the powers that are in place. The members of the community have a general distrust of the people and the government at large. Examples of this are the conversation Stiles has with Trey about a black man's place in the army, as well as social interaction between the community and the police. You can also see examples of how community is not cared for by the government as far as the trash in the neighborhood, liquor stores on the corner, and the lack of community policing. These are examples that are referenced in the broken window theory of the video by the Wall Street Journal. The other article on how poverty influences crime rates also goes into how basic need for the food and mental health care can influence members of the society to commit crimes if these basic needs are not met. The film shows examples of substance abuse throughout the film and the post-traumatic stress caused by gun violence. The continued behavior and stress all the more normalizes behavior which will end in never stopping the repeated cycles of general poverty and criminal behavior. In conclusion, the connection between poverty and crime is very complicated and a not one size fits all will be the answer. A combination of government giving these communities the same support more affluent communities receive as well as addressing the root causes of crime as well as community members taking some accountability for their own actions will all step in the right direction to correct these social issues. I once learned something at my job that if we as a government do not stop and fix a problem that causes trauma then we are failing the next generation who will have to deal with the repeated trauma when it is their turn to be the community. The social issue of poverty was represented very similar to the world I see and witness daily minus a bit of the needed trauma in a film setting. I also believe this social issue was represented correctly as far as inner city poverty goes. I would like to justify this statement based on my real world experience. I am in law enforcement in the inner city of San Francisco. I also grew up in the inner city stricken by poverty in the inner cities of Boston and Cambridge. In the mid 80s and early 90s while the crack cocaine epidemic was very prevalent. The realities of poor inner cities stricken with poverty resulted in very similar events portrayed in the movie. The neighborhood I grew up was full of broken homes where father figures were not present. It left the boys in the neighborhood to cling to each other as a means of survival against rival groups. When young men are left on their own to formulate their support group what usually ends up happening is an older boy who might have gotten an earlier start to life of crime becomes a role model to these young boys in the neighborhood. As a young boy you look for acceptance and validation so you might copy some of the behaviors of your role model just like a young boy would want to be like his dad. Depending on the role model some criminal behavior may be the cultural norm based on the group's leaders and neighborhood traditions and social norms. Just like the movie we had friends who did come from a more traditional family group with a bit more money and the result on average was those kids ended up more like Trey who was college bound while the other boys with poverty and single parent households had a household similar to Doughboy. I would still lean on the conflict theory when studying these kinds of social issues as it relates to poverty and inner cities. While I interpretate the conflict theory to be a winner and lose a description of the theory I also believe an individual can choose which side of the conflict theory they want to be on. Sure it is much harder to get on the right side of the conflict theory when born into a particular situation but if you look at my life as a self-reporting example I was willing to do the work to reverse the daily practices of my former life and develop new practices to turn my life in the right direction. I chose a life of law enforcement by discipline and sacrifice to make the necessary steps to slowly give a better life for myself and my son. I had to work long hours to find the right people who were not of the same mindset, find the right positive role models and to just honestly work my tail off. It was not fast, it was very hard but I fundamentally believe that the majority of the people of the world know the difference between right and wrong and if someone continues to make the right decisions then they can also continue to make the right decisions. I feel it is very possible to see someone who was born into a very good situation end up on the wrong side of the conflict theory on poor decision making choices. I see it every day while working in the Tenderloin neighborhood of San Francisco which is a major epicenter of drug use and crime. A large portion of the people in the Tenderloin neighborhood are single parents and they have a very similar background of single parent households with substance abuse close by. Those kids are also using their current role models to emulate their daily habits which can end up in a very negative outcome. I also get to see that rare child who is working hard regardless of the situation who makes the necessary daily decisions to reverse their outcome. The audience in society at large can challenge personal assumptions and biases by remembering that the system is set up to have a certain group with money to have a head start while leaving the ones born into very poor situations to have a much harder time. As Karl Marx has mentioned, as far as negative impacts of a capitalist society, the need for social services for those born into these poor situations is crucial for us to be able to move forward. For those born into these poor situations, it's crucial for them to at least have a chance to better their situation. Programs like free education, child care, safe places for kids to develop and sports are all examples of social services for these children to come into contact with the role models they should be emulating rather than the folks that might not have their best interest at heart. While a means of surviving may cause folks to make poor short-term decisions for immediate needs, social services are needed for those not having the basic needs met to at least give them the necessities so they can better their current situation. I also do not feel these services need to be abused and should be directed towards people who are making an effort to live their best lives wherever they are on their journey. For many, it takes time. I say all this as it is very easy for people to be biased towards these poor inner city neighborhoods as, on the surface level, it may look like it is a bunch of kids running around doing some bad things. I would like to do the same challenge to a rich neighborhood if all the money was taken. I would like to see how the dynamics of their daily behavior might change. As I continue to work in law enforcement profession with no plans of ever leaving until retirement, I am continually grateful for the classes I get to take as they challenge me to look at the big picture and practice empathy and respect for the situations and projects I am assigned to. All the theories come into play as I do my day-to-day life and react to a certain situation in the real world of law enforcement. Learning about the significance of how society emphasizes certain objects to obtain for social acceptance initiates me to look at the symbolic interactionism theory and it helps me understand why people make bad decisions to obtain certain items as a matter of acceptance. The conflict theory shows me ways in which it is much harder for one to escape a life that they were born into based on how society is set up without any real signs of changing. I have learned through this course and others that you can only look at the society, you can not look at society through any ethnocentric lens to meet folks where they are. While I agree with what Karl Marx has to say, I do not believe we will see Karl Marx's theories put into place in my lifetime and that we are going to have to live in a capitalist society which does have a more conflict theoretical perspective practice in the daily lives of society. As far as members of society goes, it is up to the individual to lift themselves the best they can regardless of their situation. Ultimately, they have no other choice. What we can do as far as limiting our biases and helping out those in need is to live a good life so folks who might need a role model have a positive role model to emulate. This is done through daily habits and compassion and empathy with the ones we run into who might need to be lifted or at least met where they are without judgment and bias, challenging for sure. Using sociological theory to examine these complex issues helps limit bias and helps to understand these issues as it limits ethnocentrism and lets people who are trying to learn and solve these types of social problems meet people where they are. This is the only true way of building trust and having the ability to learn and create solutions to the social issues of poverty as well as others. In conclusion, I still stand with the conflict theory as a way to study and analyze my social issues of poverty as it relates to inner cities in America and the issues that stem from it. All of my research from the film to articles to even film reviews all say that the film boys in the hood and the issues it raises still stand true to this day even though the film was made in the 90s. It talks about gentrification, substance abuse, single parent households, peer pressure among young adults, crime and lack of positive role models, the same issue that plague inner cities with poverty today. It is common in all research that the need to supplement poor communities with necessary resources as far as financial literacy, positive programs where young adults can have positive role models and the need to control substance abuse are all necessary to give young adults a way to break these cycles of poverty and crime. Poverty and crime go hand in hand as a matter of survival and with social services and a lot of hard work, this cycle can be broken for the next generation. I feel the film positively affects generations to come by shining a light on some of these issues that these children need to deal with. Hopefully more folks can limit their bias as they learn about some of these issues that challenge these kids that many more affluent kids do not deal with daily. The film challenges stereotypes because it shows that even through a young man or woman may be from a certain neighborhood, the outcomes can vastly be different depending on the resources the child may have. Ricky had football and Trey had his dad, but Doughboy chose a different path even though his underlying love for his friends was evident in action. Remember when Ricky got his football taken by the older kids in the beginning? Doughboy was the only one who stepped up knowing he was going to get beat up to get his brother's ball back. If that is not a sign of a good kid, I'm not sure what is. Bias needs to be limited so everyone can see the good in these kids and not focus on issues they may not understand. We do not need to be judgmental so we can come from a true place of helping. Easier said than done. Thank you.